Word v. Sumner County Sheriff's Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LATHAN WORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUMNER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:26-cv-00002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lathan Word filed a pro se complaint alleging violations of his civil rights stemming from
Word’s arrest on January 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). Now before the Court are Word’s second Motion
for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25), Motion for Emergency Protective Order (Doc. No. 26),
and Motion for Leave to Amend Prior Motion and Complaint (Doc. No. 33). As explained below,
Word’s motions will be denied. Additionally, the parties will be ordered to notify the Court
regarding the status of Word’s state criminal prosecution.
I. 	MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Word’s 	second 	Motion 	for 	Preliminary 	Injunction 	(Doc. No. 25), 	and 	Motion 	for
Emergency Protective Order (Doc. No. 26) both seek preliminary injunctive relief on the same
basis.
Ordinarily, Courts look to four factors in assessing whether to grant a preliminary
injunction: “(1) whether the party moving for the injunction is facing immediate, irreparable harm,
(2) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the merits, (3) the balance of the equities, and
(4) the public interest.” D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs., 942 F.3d 324, 326 (6th Cir. 2019). However,
“a plaintiff must present the existence of an irreparable injury to get a preliminary injunction. Thus,
Case 3:26-cv-00002 Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

2
a district court is well within its province when it denies a preliminary injunction based solely on
the lack of an irreparable injury.” (Id.) (citation and quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).
“To merit a preliminary injunction, an injury must be both certain and immediate, not speculative
or theoretical.” (Id.)
Here, Word asserts that his recent incarceration for contempt of court in Sumner County
demonstrates ongoing retaliation. (Doc. No. 25 at 2−3; Doc. No. 26 at 2). However, Word does not
allege, let alone present evidence, that any Defendant was responsible for the finding of contempt
of court. On the contrary, Word asserts that non-Defendant Judge Dee Gay made the finding.
(Doc. No. 25 at 2). Because Word has not alleged ongoing irreparable injury based on unlawful
conduct by the named Defendants, his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25) and
Motion for Emergency Protective Order (Doc. No. 26) will be denied.
II. 	MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
“A motion to amend a pleading must . . . include as an appended exhibit the signed
proposed amended pleading.” M.D. Tenn. L.R. 15.01(a)(1). “Amended pleadings must restate the
entirety of the pleading with amendments incorporated, rather than merely reciting the amended
sections.” M.D. Tenn. L.R. 15.01(b).
Here, Word’s Motion for Leave to Amend does not include a proposed amended complaint.
Instead, Word attached a “Table of Authorities and Constitutional Violations in Support of
Plaintiff’s Claims and Pending Motions.” (Doc. No. 33-1). Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to
Amend (Doc. No. 33) will be denied without prejudice. If Word seeks to file an amended
complaint, he must comply with the Court’s local rules.
Case 3:26-cv-00002 Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

3
III. 	STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
In his Complaint, Word alleges that all criminal charges stemming from his arrest on
January 4, 2025, had been dismissed. (See Doc. No. 1 at 6) (alleging that “all criminal charges
against Plaintiff’ had been dismissed and that “Plaintiff obtained a Certificate of Dismissal /
Deletion, confirming that the alleged offenses lacked legal and factual basis”).
However, in his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25) and related filings,
Plaintiff refers to ongoing state criminal proceedings. Additionally Court notes that the Sumner
County online courts record system indicates that Word faces pending charges for Resisting a Stop,
Arrest, or Search and other offenses, with the violation date listed as January 4, 2025. State v.
Word, No. 83CC1-2025-CR-409 (Sumner Cnty. Cir. Ct.).1
If Word faces ongoing state criminal prosecution related to the events of January 4, 2025,
then some or all of his claims may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486−87 (1994).
Additionally, if Word made deliberate misstatements in his Complaint or other filings regarding
the status of his state criminal proceedings, he may be subject to sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(b)(3), (c).
Accordingly, the parties will be directed to notify the Court regarding the current status of
Word’s state criminal proceedings related to his arrest on January 4, 2025, as well as the status of
those 	proceedings 	on 	January 2, 2026, 	when 	Word 	filed 	his 	Complaint 	in 	this 	action.
(See Doc. No. 1 at 9).
1 Available by search at https://sumner.tncrtinfo.com/cmCaseList.aspx (Last visited Mar. 25, 2026).
Case 3:26-cv-00002 Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

4
IV. CONCLUSION
Word’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25), Motion for Emergency Protective
Order (Doc. No. 26), and Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 33) are DENIED.
The parties SHALL notify the Court on or before May 1, 2026, regarding the current
status of Word’s state criminal proceedings related to his arrest on January 4, 2025, as well as the
status of those proceedings on January 2, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00002 Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>